Bonners Ferry annexation challenge endures

SANDPOINT — A petition challenging the city of Bonners Ferry’s annexation of 77 parcels was spared a premature death on Wednesday.

First District Judge Steve Verby ruled against the city’s motion to dismiss the Annexation Opposition Group’s petition for judicial review, rejecting the city’s position that the group lacked standing.

Landowners objected being absorbed into the city because the services they would receive from the city would not compensate for the increased taxes. Some also simply do not wish to be residents of the city or subject to its laws.

The Annexation Opposition Group, which formed when the City Council approved the annexation last November, filed its petition for judicial review in January.

The opposition group maintains that city officials failed to articulate how the annexation would benefit the city or impact the existing municipal infrastructure and services of the city. They also assert the mayor and council failed to give proper weight to the city’s Planning & Zoning recommendation against the annexation, according to court documents.

Will Herrington, the city’s counsel in the litigation, argued the group’s petition was lacking because it identified no landowners who would be affected parties in the annexation. Herrington cited a number of cases addressing ownership interests and affected parties.

“In all the cases we found, the petitioner had found an ownership interest in the property that made them an affected person,” said Herrington.

Herrington urged the court to dismiss the petition because annexation opponents failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

“That’s a red herring. It does not apply in a petition for judicial review,” countered Fonda Jovick, counsel for the Annexation Opposition Group.

Jovick argued city officials were the sole supporters of the annexation and the objections of landowners were simply disregarded. She also pointed to affidavits from Douglas Ladely, Shayne Fallis and Matthew Philbrook, each of whom attested to the origins of Annexation Opposition Group and their ownership interests in real property within the expanded city boundaries.

Jovick said the only grounds for the dismissal of the petition would be if it was not filed in a timely manner. Jovick also asserted that the petitioners should be awarded costs and attorney fees for litigating the motion to dismiss, which she argued was filed by the city as a dilatory tactic.

Verby ultimately denied the city’s motion to dismiss, but declined to award costs and fees because he did not view the motion as frivolous or intended to delay the proceedings.